|
|
|
California court charging for online access
Top Court Watch |
2014/05/16 15:33
|
A Northern California county has begun charging people to look at civil court records online — part of a trend at cash-strapped courthouses around the state that is raising concerns among some lawyers and public access groups, a newspaper reported.
As of April 23, Alameda County Superior Court charges $1 for each of the first five pages of a civil court record downloaded online, the Oakland Tribune reported on Monday.
The per-page viewing cost drops to 50 cents after the fifth page, and there is a $40 maximum charge for any single document.
Sacramento County Superior Court is implementing a similar fee structure this summer, the Tribune reported. Fees in the Los Angeles County Superior Court system start at $4.75 for each record search. Santa Clara County plans to begin charging in two to four years, according to the Tribune.
Court officials say the fees help make up for cuts in state aid.
"There's a budget crisis in the courts," said Teresa Ruano, spokeswoman for the state's Administrative Office of the Courts. "Revenue is part of the solution, a small part of the solution."
Each court decides whether it wants to charge a fee for records, though the state sets the maximum amount that can be charged for both paper and online records. Some counties don't put records online, forcing people to come in and visit the clerk's office. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma gay-marriage case before US appeals court
Top Court Watch |
2014/04/17 15:06
|
Court arguments over Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage will center on whether voters singled out gay people for unfair treatment when they overwhelmingly defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Judges at a federal appeals court in Denver will hear arguments Thursday from lawyers representing a couple challenging Oklahoma's ban and the Tulsa County clerk who refused to grant them a license. The judges heard a similar case from Utah last week.
Oklahoma voters approved the ban in 2004 by a 3-1 margin. The Tulsa couple tried to obtain a marriage license shortly afterward.
A federal judge overturned the ban in January, saying it violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Lawyers for the state say voters have a right to set their own laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court finds EPA carbon decision reasonable
Top Court Watch |
2014/04/15 15:07
|
A federal appeals court says the Environmental Protection Agency acted reasonably in deciding not to change the primary air quality standard for carbon monoxide.
Three environmental and wildlife organizations want the public health standard toughened.
But the appeals court says in a 3-0 ruling that the private groups cannot challenge the lack of a secondary air quality standard for carbon monoxide. The EPA decided not to have one, based on a finding that the connection between carbon monoxide and climate change was tenuous.
The court ruled Friday that the groups failed to show that the absence of a secondary standard would worsen global warming.
Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas in motor vehicle exhaust. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Refuses To Overturn Arizona Marijuana Ruling
Top Court Watch |
2014/04/03 16:25
|
The Supreme Court has refused to overturn Arizona court rulings ordering the Yuma County sheriff to return marijuana that was seized from a woman with a California medical marijuana authorization honored by Arizona.
The justices' order was issued without comment Monday in the case of Valerie Okun, who had marijuana in her car when a Border Patrol agent stopped her and her husband in Yuma County, Ariz., in 2011. She was charged with marijuana possession crimes, but the charges were dropped when she provided proof she was authorized to possess marijuana under California's medical marijuana program. Arizona's medical marijuana law allows people with authorizations from other states to have marijuana in Arizona.
But the Yuma County sheriff refused to return Okun's marijuana, even after Arizona courts ruled in her favor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mass. casino foes ask court to allow repeal effort
Top Court Watch |
2014/03/24 15:31
|
Attorney General Martha Coakley erred in excluding from the November state ballot a question that calls for the repeal of the 2011 gambling law, and voters should have the right to decide the issue, casino opponents contended in a court filing Friday.
The group Repeal the Casino Deal submitted a 53-page brief with the Supreme Judicial Court, which is expected to hear arguments in early May.
Former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, a leader of the anti-casino movement, said that while he greatly respected Coakley, she was "simply wrong" in her analysis of the repeal petition. He said it was inevitable the question would ultimately appear on the ballot.
The casino law allows for up to three resort casinos and one slots parlor and created the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to award licenses and regulate future gambling.
All proposed ballot questions must first go through the attorney general's office to determine whether they pass constitutional muster. In last fall's ruling, Coakley said the repeal question would violate the contracts clause of the state constitution by permitting voters to interfere with implied contracts between the commission and applicants for casino licenses.
"The proposed law is therefore inconsistent with the right to receive compensation for private property appropriated to public use and cannot be certified," the attorney general wrote.
Repeal the Casino Deal argued in its filing that in passing the law, the Legislature did not intend to create any contracts between the commission and casino applicants that would ever prevent the state from exercising its policing or regulatory powers over gambling. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the internet world. Small Law Firm Web Design by Law Promo |
|
Recent Lawyer Blog Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
